A small victory for free speech!
 

That should have some interesting consequences for those who questioned the policy on various forums and subsequently received letters from the company about their claims.

A news article today says Ryanair is going to appeal....

I have been very fortunate inasmuch as I have never flown for an employer, either as captain or FO, which has challenged the fuel decision of the Pilot In Command.

I do recollect asking my Chief Pilot if they kept a fuel table. He said that they did. I asked where I was on it. I was second from bottom, i.e., I took more extra fuel than most other captains.
I must point out that I was NEVER challenged about my decisions but, following my request for information, thought that I was probably being over cautious.
Oh, the companies which didn't challenge: BA and Cathay.

Best of luck to those of you who had to make the token appology in your subsequent lawsuits :)

I flew as a Captain for eight years for a company which never once questioned my fuel decisions.
Sometimes I took PLOG fuel, sometimes I took a bit extra, sometimes I took a lot extra, depending on what I considered the traffic and weather situations called for, but not once was there any mention of , let alone criticism of my decisions.



The airline was Ryanair.

It is nothing to do with free speech. It is a victory for the principle that if you make accusations about a business venture that may affect the profitability or operation of that venture, you better be sure you can back it up with the facts. The judge obviously felt in this case they could.

I think I was justified yesterday when I posted that the Belgians had put one across Ryanair.

Leo Camel makes it starkly obvious where the MoL loyalty lies. ;);)

Plenty of fuel reserves left in the tank for the legal "go around"!

LGW Vulture, Ive flown for my bread and butter since I was seventeen, but have no clue what MoL is, could you point me in the right direction as to what this stands for? Thanks!.PS, I just cant imagine working for a company which questions such decisions, so glad Im retired and fly my own corporate aircraft and would NEVER question one of my pilots decisions! {by the way, in spite of this we make lots of money!}

'MoL' = Michael O'Leary, CEO of Dublin based Ryanair.

MOL has said he wants to offer a better experience ie pre allocated seats extra hand baggage simplified booking etc, yet he wants to drag his operating policy back into open Court. He would be adivised to accept the Court decision otherwise he will undermine his new "openish" policy. It will take a long time for people to forget the bad experiences.

This case apparently relates to a Dutch programme; is this the same programme which I saw on British TV last year?

Read all about it-here
 

A great result, it's good to see that not everyone fears the libel "chilling effect".

I suspect a similar outcome for Ryanair in the not too distant future, with regard to several other lawsuits it has issued against TV companies as well as individuals, related to alleged defamatory claims made about them.

If any of these go all the way to a public court hearing there's going to be some interesting stories in the press that's for sure.

As someone has already pointed out beware the "Streisand effect".

Ha ha ha! Always nice to see O'Leary get shafted in court. :ok: :}

I've said it many times before... If he spent half as much effort treating PEOPLE properly, as he spent litigating against them, he might have avoided a Pilot shortage, and kept his eye on the ball, and not been made to look like a schoolyard bullyboy by Carolyn McCall.

Just my own humble opinion of course :}

Final fuel load rests with the PIC... not dispatch, not arm chair quarterbacking base captains, and not the company. Its in every country's aviation regulations.

It's also a very significant victory for flight safety. If the safety culture at an airline is so poor that the pilots feel the only mitigation for a threat is to go to the press, then alarm bells should be ringing. An escalation of the "Streisand'' effect is now that those threats have been considered valid by a court, the alarm bells should be the size of big ben!

It is often the practice of people with deep pockets to rush to law with the aim to bully those who can't afford the legal advice to defend themselves.

It is good to see these sort of people loose in court......... The Striesant effect is a sort of bonus.